Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> 1 methods. For example, should widening include dedicated busways for BRT-H, how do <br /> 2 commuters mode transfer from car to LRT or BRT and where (i.e., adequate Park & Ride and <br /> 3 where in corridor do you locate), how can actions ensure that the transit method does not <br /> 4 duplicate investment (i.e., LRT fully addressing commuter patterns so parallel BRT or bus <br /> 5 service is not needed). <br /> 6 <br /> 7 NEXT STEPS: <br /> 8 March 16, 2012 is the deadline for public comment to be submitted to the DCHC MPO <br /> 9 Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Attachment 3 is a draft letter for the BOCC to consider submitting to the MPO with or without <br /> 12 revisions. The draft has been prepared based on Board comments at its February 21st meeting <br /> 13 and other recent Board discussions on bus and rail. The draft letter conveys the Board's <br /> 14 questions and comments regarding the study. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 STUDY SCHEDULE: <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Feb 21 Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners (Planning Board and <br /> 19 Orange Unified Transportation Board members invited to attend) <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Mar 8 Durham City Council receives the report at a work session for review and <br /> 22 comment <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Mar 12 Chapel Hill Town Council approves comments on report <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Mar 13 Orange County approves comments on the report <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Mar 14 MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Public Hearing <br /> 29 <br /> 30 March Durham County review and approves comments on the report (prior to March 16) <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Mar 16 Deadline for public comment <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Mar 28 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) recommends NC 54 <br /> 35 recommendations for approval by TAC <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Apr 11 Approval by TAC <br /> 38 <br /> 39 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board approve the attached letter <br /> 40 (Attachment 3) for submission to the DCHC MPO TAC with or without changes. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 The Board then discussed the proposed draft letter recommended by staff. <br /> 43 Commissioner Gordon noted that the letter should go to the Transportation Advisory <br /> 44 Committee, not the Technical Advisory Committee <br /> 45 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the bullet on the top of page 5. He thought <br /> 46 that the first part of the sentence is saying that there is not adequate density and the second <br /> 47 part is saying that light rail will not support the high density. It seems contradictory. <br /> 48 Craig Benedict said that there are two ideas embedded in that bullet and they probably <br /> 49 should be separated. One is that the density development might not get the thresholds that <br /> 50 would make light rail transit viable. The second part should be a second bullet, that the amount <br />